Organizations are searching for ways to work “smarter” and “faster.” As work is becoming more complex within more dynamic environments, teams must make sense of the situation by creating shared understanding and producing knowledge-work products, such as, but not limited to, documents and presentations. Table A lists the requirements of collaboration-enhancement products.
TABLE 1Requirements of Groupware to Naturally Support Team CollaborationLimitations in the Current SituationRequirement:Supporting Statement:ImproveReduce cycles through process; shorten cycle time toproductivitymarketProduce faster consensus-buildingGenerate reports and presentations directly from col-laborative activitiesDirectly link to underlying thinking from generatedreportsBe able to include remote participants in same timesessionsRequire little or no training to use toolsImproveBring larger numbers of people (enterprise-wide) into theproblem-resolution of a problem in a more manageable waysolvingObtain higher quality feedback and ideas from diversegroups of people quickly and frequently to shape solu-tionsCreate ad hoc problem-solving sessions as virtualmeetings that involve participants in their own time(zones)EnhanceFacilitate the collection and processing of ideas wherevercreativitytalent resides in the organizationGet more ideas (especially new product ideas), evaluate/sort them, develop alternatives, develop new products,etc.OperationalizeCapture activities being undertaken by any groups any-Learning Org.where in the worldCapture corporate memoryIntegrate with most common desktop products for easyaccess to “corporate memory”
The major limitation of current collaboration technologies is that they are tool-centric, i.e., the tool is used within its own separate environment and the output of the process is based on the functionality of the tool. The disadvantages of a tool-centric approach are:                Limited integration with existing infrastructure and legacy systems        Limited leveraging of existing domain and computer technology knowledge        Cost of ownership higher:                    Learning costs high            Administrative costs high: deploying, updating, etc.            Requires new administrative training and/or personnel.                        
Existing and forthcoming technologies for creating, editing, and distributing shared work products developed with a computer such as, but not limited to, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, software, etc. have major differences with the Collaboration Engine invention to be subsequently described.                1. Conceptually, for the most part, non-Collaboration Engine technologies view the work product, such as, but not limited to, a document as a monolith. For example, while one can cut and paste, and embed objects in the document, the level of granularity is still at the document level. Documents are stored as files. When one person edits a work product, such as, but not limited to, a document, others are prevented from editing the work product at the same time.        2. Existing non-Collaboration Engine technologies implement the sharing of work products, such as documents by placing them in some space that can be shared by others. For example, in Windows, one can allow the sharing of a directory, and if one person opens up the document, Windows prevents one from opening up another copy, except in read-only mode. In a growing web-based environment, one still has a repository where one, who has permission, can check-out a document from a centralized storage area, usually a file server at a web-site. Others can not work on this document until it is returned to the central source.        
These architectures support the way people currently handle shared work products. This is the classic automation of manual work processes. One reason the manual process of routing documents sequentially predominated was, because until Collaboration Engine, there was no easy way for more than one person to view and edit a work product such as, but not limited to, a document at the same time. Certainly with pen and paper technology there was no way to easily subdivide a document so that it could be simultaneously be created by more than one person. Office automation products have just automated the filing cabinet, where a folder is removed and routed.
The other way that people deal with the inefficiency of routing is for one person to send out multiple copies of the same work product, such as, but not limited to, a document. Each person who receives the document then makes changes to the document separately. It is then up to the person who sent the document to reconcile these differences in a somewhat arduous and tedious manner. Even if the document contains sections that each person works on separately, it is still up to the coordinator to cut and paste these changes into the master document. For example, a research group is creating a document that both summarizes the research goals and accomplishments for the group and has separate sections for each researcher to fill in (and this information is constantly changing). Either the master document is routed sequentially, or the changes are made simultaneously on duplicate documents and someone reconciles the changes.